Posted by sealed/CA on 6/18/13 12:34am
Msg #473760

I'm named in the doc.

I notarized a deed some time ago for transfer of property and now they want to add title ins. The doc. is just stating certain facts about the deed such as when it was recorded, grantee, that it was executed before_____ (my name, a notary public), etc.
I think that I should just have him find another notary for this one but would like to know your thoughts. I know that I do not have an interest in this doc. being signed but am still uncomfortable signing it with my name in it.
Any thoughts?

Reply by LKT/CA on 6/18/13 12:41am
Msg #473762

Is this doc something that needs notarizing or just needs signing? Let the TC know that you cannot notarize a document you're named in - even if it's just to state who the doc is executed before. Maybe they can change the phrase to just say it was executed before a notary public, without naming the notary. And CA notaries are not supposed to use their title except on a notarial certificate anyway, so that's another reason for the TC to take that out of the doc.

Reply by sealed/CA on 6/18/13 12:44am
Msg #473765

Yes. It has a jurat. It needs to be signed and notarized before title will insue a policy.

Reply by sealed/CA on 6/18/13 12:46am
Msg #473766

I meant issue a title ins. policy.

Reply by VT_Syrup on 6/18/13 6:39am
Msg #473768

Re: I'm named in the doc. Consider POA copies

Notaries in many states are allowed to make certified copies; in CA they can make certified copies of POAs. In most cases, the same notary who took the acknowledgement on the POA will be certifying the copy, so the notary's name will appear within the copy that is being certified. So this is a perfectly acceptable example of notarizing a document in which the notary is named, but which the notary has no financial interest in.

Perhaps the same reasoning would apply in the case at the beginning of this thread?

Reply by LKT/CA on 6/18/13 8:19am
Msg #473775

Re: I'm named in the doc. Consider POA copies

The CA rule says we cannot use our title outside of a notarial cert. Also, the notary cannot be named in the doc...with absolutely no bearing on whether the interest is financial. Certifying a POA copy is an allowable exception - a rule that cannot be justified in other circumstances.

Reply by Belinda/CA on 6/18/13 9:55am
Msg #473785

Gov't Code 8207 does not say...

Gov't Code 8207 states: "A notary public shall not use the title "notary public" except for the purpose of rendering notarial service."

As written it is rather vague.

It says the title "notary public" can be used rendering notarial service.
It does not actually say it cannot be used outside the notarial certificate.
Just and FYI.

Reply by LKT/CA on 6/18/13 4:12pm
Msg #473874

Re: Gov't Code 8207 does not say...

What do you suppose "notarial service" means, according to the SOS? The notary act, thus the rendering of the notarial cert.

Reply by Shoshana/AZ on 6/18/13 6:41am
Msg #473769

You're not getting any financial benefit from the doc. It's easy enough to find another notary if you are uncomfortable.

Reply by sealed/CA on 6/18/13 9:02am
Msg #473777

This document is an affidavit that is stating certain facts. One of the facts is that I was the notary public that notarized the deed. I will not be adding my name and title, it's just stated as one of the facts that the principle will be affirming.
It's different than certifying a POA because we are not named in the doc. It just has our certificate and stamp.
I don't consider it a conflict of interest but am still not comfortable so I will have him get someone else.

Here's what the handbook says:

Conflict of Interest
A notary public is not prohibited from notarizing for relatives or others, unless doing so
would provide a direct financial or beneficial interest to the notary public. With California’s
community property law, care should be exercised if notarizing for a spouse or a domestic
partner.
A notary public would have a direct financial or beneficial interest to a transaction in the
following situations (Government Code section 8224):
• If a notary public is named, individually, as a principal to a financial transaction.
• If a notary public is named, individually, as any of the following to a real property
transaction: beneficiary, grantor, grantee, mortgagor, mortgagee, trustor, trustee, vendor,
vendee, lessor, or lessee.
A notary public would not have a direct financial or beneficial interest in a transaction if a
notary public is acting in the capacity of an agent, employee, insurer, attorney, escrow holder,
or lender for a person having a direct financial or beneficial interest in the transaction.
If in doubt as to whether or not to notarize, the notary public should seek the advice of an
attorney.

Reply by BobbiCT on 6/18/13 9:05am
Msg #473778

Affidavit of Facts where notary is named in the doc.

I would ask the title insurance company that will issue the insurance policy.
My gut feeling, working with attorney/agents who issue the policies: No. Have another notary notarize it.

You may/may not have a "financial interest," however, the title insurance company's underwriters (which are at "financial risk" based on the facts in that Affidavit) may not be comfortable with you notarizing.

In my day world, that's a "No. There are thousands of other notaries in CT; why take the risk."

Reply by sealed/CA on 6/18/13 9:08am
Msg #473779

Re: Affidavit of Facts where notary is named in the doc.

Exactly! I feel the same way. I will pass on this one.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 6/18/13 1:41pm
Msg #473837

Just a couple of quick thoughts on this... Don't have time to research, so this is off the top of my head, but I think a little common sense might help wade through this - and many other - issues.

I believe the restriction on use of the title of "Notary Public" is to prohibit people from using that title when involved in other activities in order to try to imply credibility, when there's actually no relationship. One of the biggest areas of concern is when dealing with immigration documents, for example, and populations where a "Notario" is someone in a position elevated above that of the typical attorney. It could also apply to any other unrelated activity where a person also happens to be a Notary Public, where someone is trying to imply trustworthiness, (e.g. selling their car, or whatever). So a simple way to address that problem is to prohibit use of the title outside of the actual act of notarization. But when someone refers to you in that role in a form that relates to your function as a notary, IMO, that's not the same as you using that as a formal title after your name.

As for the discomfort with the notary name in the document, I'm not sure where that comes from. Perhaps it's because we in California (at least) are used to seeing the notary certificate and verbiage as completely separate from the rest of the document and we actually think of a certificate as being a separate document. Further, the UPL statement in our handbook includes a restriction against being involved in the "preparation" of documents, which further emphasizes that separation. And we have prohibitions against certifying anything other than what is stated in the certificates themselves (aside from copies of POAs & journal entries, of course), which is often part of those sentences that include the notary name.

Whenever I see something in a document that starts out referring to "...me __________, the undersigned" (or some variation of that), referring to me in the first person, it just doesn't feel right, and I'm also not comfortable having my name in the document outside of the notary certificate. But I live with it, as long as it doesn't have me certifying anything beyond what I'm allowed to do - depending on how it's worded. It's a judgment call every time.

Finally, addressing the actual question in the OP, perhaps the discomfort comes from the feeling that you're notarizing yourself? I would *probably* make the distinction by looking at who it is that is signing off on that statement. If it was me, as the notary, not gonna happen. But if someone else was signing off on that, IMO, it becomes simply a statement of fact, and we're just notarizing their signature, as we would any other. But I'd have to see the whole document to make a firm judgment call.